28 day free trial

28 day free trial

28 day free trial

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Home MyLawMemo About Us   Arbitrators


National Arbitration Center

Title: State of Oregon, Fairview Training Center and AFSCME Local 1246
Date: December 15, 1993 
Arbitrator: Luella E. Nelson 
Citation: 1993 NAC 106


In the matter of arbitration between:

AFSCME Local 1246


State of Oregon, Fairview Training Center

RE: Interest Arbitration

LUELLA E. NELSON, Arbitrator




            This Interest Arbitration arises between AFSCME Local 1246 ("Union"), and State of Oregon ("State"), Fairview Training Center ("Agency" or "FTC").  LUELLA E. NELSON was selected to serve as Arbitrator.  Her Award, when combined with the parties' agreed-upon provisions, will constitute the full Agreement between the parties.

            At a hearing held on October 11, 12, and 18, 1993, in Salem, Oregon, the parties had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce relevant exhibits, and argue the issues in dispute.  The Arbitrator closed the hearing over the issues in dispute upon receipt of the parties' post-hearing briefs on November 13, 1993.  The parties agreed to extend the deadline for this Award.

            In arriving at her Decision and Award, the Arbitrator weighed and considered the following criteria set forth in the Oregon Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, ORS 243.746(4), and the Rules of the Oregon Employment Relations Board ("ERB"), OAR 115-40-015(8):

            (a)        The lawful authority of the employer;

            (b)        Stipulations of the parties;

            (c)        The interest and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit government to meet those costs;

            (d)        Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services and with other employees generally:

                        (A)       In public employment in comparable communities;

                        (B)       In private employment in comparable communities;

            (e)        The average consumer prices for goods and services commonly known as the cost of living;

            (f)        The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, and continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received;

            (g)        Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings;

            (h)        Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, factfinding, arbitration or otherwise between the parties, in the public service or in private service.

The Arbitrator has not considered matters beyond the statutory criteria.  If such matters are to be addressed, it must be through the forums provided for their resolution.


            On behalf of the Union:

                        Allison Hassler, Council Representative, Oregon AFSCME Council 75, 4660 Portland Road, NE, Salem, OR   97305.

            On behalf of the State:

                        Cathy Schuh, Labor Relations Manager, Personnel and Labor Relations Division, 155 Cottage Street NE, Salem, OR   97310-0310.


            FTC is part of the Mental Health & Developmental Disability Services Division ("MHDDSD").  It provides 24-hour care, treatment, training, and education for developmentally disadvantaged individuals.  It employs approximately 1800 employees, who are represented in four bargaining units.  This case involves 66 non-strikeable employees in the "Guard" unit.  Of those, two are Mental Health Security and Safety Officers ("MHSSO's"); the other 64 are in the Habilitative Training Technician ("HTT") series.  56 employees are HTT-1's, the lowest classification in the series.

            The Union also represents another 1,400 strikeable FTC employees in the "non-Guard" unit.  That unit also includes employees in the HTT series.  Both groups of employees were represented in a single bargaining unit from 1980 until 1984, when the State petitioned ERB to declare the Guards non-strikeable.  The two units have since bargained separate contracts with the State.

            The parties began negotiations in April 1992 for a successor to their 1989-92 Agreement.  For the first time, they engaged in central bargaining on economic terms for all the units represented by the Union State-wide.  After mediation, the parties reached tenta­tive agreement on December 23, 1992.  However, in a contract ratification vote held January 6, 1993, this bargaining unit's members rejected the contract.  The parties returned to mediation, where they resolved all but four issues.  The parties offered evidence in support of their positions on the following issues:

            Article 17 - Salaries

            Article 21 - Shift Differential

            Article 26 - CMA Differential

            Article 29 - Overtime

            The State's proposals mirror the economic items agreed to in central bargaining for other units represented by the Union State-wide, except that the centrally-negotiated economic terms of other agreements provide for a wage reopener in July 1993 for the 1993-94 contract year.




            Union:  The Union proposed a 6% general wage increase, effective July 1, 1992.  It also proposed selective salary increases for the entire HTT Series.  Thus, HTT-1's move from Range 14* to Range 20; HTT-2's from 15 to 21; HTT Shift Charges from 16 to 22; and HTT-3's from 17 to 23.

            The Union also proposed longevity premiums, whereby each employee with at least 7 consecutive years of employment shall have his/her individual wage rate increased above his/her current salary rate.  The longevity rate shall be ½% for each full year of employment, to a maximum of 20 years and 10%.  Such premium will be separate from and not part of an employee's wage rate.

            State:  The State proposed a 2% general wage increase at Step 7 for each classification of the salary schedule, effective June 30, 1993, at 11:59 p.m.  Employees are eligible for the addi­tional 2% at the top of the salary range on individual salary eligibility dates when reaching step 7.  Employees already at step 7 (salary range maximum) will receive the 2% on July 1, 1993.

            The State also proposed a selective salary increase for HTT-1's.  Such employees will move from FTC 14* to FTC 15 salary range on their salary eligibility dates ("SED") on or after July 1, 1993.  This latter proposal affects 56 employees.


            This issue consumed by far the bulk of the arbitration hearing.  The Arbitrator will refer to those aspects of the testimony that bear most heavily on the applicable criteria.

            63.2% of FTC's funds come from the federal government, and 2% from other sources, leaving 34.8% from the State General Fund.  The federal government requires services to certain populations and sets minimum staffing ratios for those services.  If FTC does not meet those standards, it loses its federal funding.  The following compares the total additional cost of the Union and State proposals, and the costs that would be paid from the General Fund.


                                                                        Total Funds       General Fund

            Union General Wage Proposal               $343,680           $119,601

            State General Wage Proposal                 $ 38,178            $ 13,286

            Net Difference                                       $305,502           $106,315


            Union Selective Wage Proposal              $129,364           $ 45,019

            State Selective Wage Proposal               $ 17,445            $  6,071

            Net Difference                                       $111,919           $ 38,948


 Union Longevity Proposal                      $ 25,348            $  8,821

            State Longevity Proposal                          -0-                    -0-  

            Net Difference                                      $ 25,348            $  8,821

            Total Net Difference in Wages           $442,769         $154,084

            ABILITY TO PAY

            The State bears the burden of establishing inability to pay.  The inquiry in a case of this sort is "relative" rather than "absolute" inability to pay.  That is, funds may well be available for larger pay increases to a single bargaining unit.  However, such a course of conduct would not neces­sar­ily give due deference to the interest and welfare of the public, as required by statute.  Although the Arbitrator will focus most intensively on the financial situation of FTC and MHDDSD, she cannot ignore the effect on the remaining workforce.

            Ballot Measure 5 has changed the tone of the "ability to pay" issue State-wide.  Measure 5 requires increasing annual shifts in General Revenue funds from the State to remedy mandated prop­erty tax revenue losses at lower government levels.  The budgeted ending balance for 1993-95 is $110 million, less than one third of the 1991-93 ending balance of $362 million.  Even with this reduction, the projected 1993-95 State revenues are $1.2 billion short of the funds necessary to fund programs at the same level as in 1991-93.  The legislative solution to this gap has been to seek other revenues and to cut programs by $870 million.  The State as a whole will have to shrink, rather than expand, its programs.

            Despite the adverse effects of Measure 5, some funds exist for pay increases.  Indeed, the State offered a 2% increase for most of this unit to begin in mid-1993, and agreed to an equivalent increase in other AFSCME units.  Although the State negotiated wage freezes with other unions for the first year of the 1993-95 biennium, it used savings from lower-than-anticipated insurance premiums to fund selective increases in those units for, e.g., bilingual pay.  The dispute thus is in the amount of increase available for this unit, not whether an increase can occur at all.

            MHDDSD's net costs and funding for 1993-95 are $2 million below the cost of maintaining services at the 1989-91 level; however, the mix of programs for which it is responsible will change accordingly.  FTC's 1993-95 budget is 1.14% less than its 1991-93 revenues and 1.51% less than its 1991-93 expenditures.  For 1993-95, MHDDSD as a whole will lose 13.3% of its workforce.  FTC will lose nearly 12% of its workforce. 

            FTC underspent its 1991-93 budget by approximately $660,000, less than half of one percent of its total budget.  It achieved this savings by giving up the authority for 76 previously-funded positions while keeping the funding for those positions.  Those 76 positions will not be funded for 1993-95.  FTC will have to repay $844,514 in 1991-93 Medicaid overpayments to the federal govern­ment because it overesti­mated the number of clients it would serve in that period.

            FTC has cut the size of its client population over the past five years--from nearly 1200 in 1988 to approximately 850 in 1989, and approximately 450 in 1993.  It expects further downsizing in 1993-95.  The staff also diminished, but not to the same extent as the client population because of the need to increase staffing ratios and maintain services.  The funding for the former clients moved with them to community-based programs.  FTC expects to increase its capital outlay costs by $85,000 because of the need to upgrade its physical plant (e.g., by adding handicap access and fire sprinklers).  It also expects to spend nearly $2 million more on outside services and supplies.

            The overall picture of FTC is of an agency that is having to make very difficult cuts in costs and services.  Its budget decisions cannot take it below mandated staffing ratios, nor can FTC avoid its obligation to provide safe premises.  The increases sought by the Union can come only by either cutting services or siphoning from other State programs.  However, the MHDDSD and State budgets are also pressed.  To the extent that the State has been able to offer small pay increases, it has come from small or no pay increases in numerous other bargaining units, repre­sented by several unions.  Therefore, unless a particularly compelling basis exists for a significant pay increase, the State is relatively unable to pay the increases asked by this small unit.


            In a 1985 interest arbitration, Arbitrator Timothy Williams concluded that no comparable posi­tions existed in neighboring states.  He also concluded that unit employees were not comparable to State correctional employees.  He found the unit employees comparable to Oregon State Hospital ("OSH") employees with the same job title represented by the Oregon Public Employees Union ("OPEU").  While his findings are not binding in this case, they are instructive as background to the evidence presented here.  The parties pointed to the following groups of employees:

            A.  Employees in Other States

            In theory, the use of comparables from other states may avoid in-state anomalies that may arti­fi­cially reduce wages in a particular field.  The counter to this theory is that out-of-state figures may be skewed by differences in cost of living and recruitment pools unique to those states.  Even if one discounts this concern, however, pay structures in other states often are of little utility.  Comparable worth is difficult enough to calculate where the functions can be directly observed and assessed.  The calculation becomes even more speculative when making a second-hand evaluation based on unknown methodology for developing class specifications and job descriptions. This is even more true where, as here, most positions are not closely comparable on their face.

            As in 1985, the parties looked for comparable positions in Washington, Idaho, Nevada and California.  Also as in 1985, the parties disagree about the comparable job titles in those states.  In general, the classifications selected by the State require fewer qualifications and/or perform less responsible duties, and are compensated at or below HTT's.  Those selected by the Union require greater qualifications and/or perform more responsible duties, and receive greater compensation.  The parties also do not agree on the proper method of costing out the benefits received by employees in other states.  On this record, the comparison with employees in other states does not permit a reliable conclusion regarding relative compensation.

            B.  With Oregon Private Employees

            The vast majority of FTC's clients are there by civil or voluntary commitment.  Nine are accused of crimes, but have been committed by the courts because their mental disease or defect makes them incapable of going forward with the court processes.  The latter clients would not be treated at private institutions.  Some former FTC clients are now at private facilities in Oregon.

            The State's compensation specialist concluded that in-state comparators were better matches to unit positions than were the out-of-state comparators.  Like the out-of-state comparators, the State submitted the written job specifications for these facilities.  Those specifications reveal some differences in duties and qualifications.  The record does not permit the Arbitrator to determine the significance that would be placed on those differences even under the State's classification practices.  Accordingly, the Arbitrator cannot draw a reliable conclusion regarding the comparability of such employees with this unit.

            C.  With Oregon Public Employees at Other Agencies

            OSH maintains a maximum security facility (the "Forensics ward") for clients who require a more restrictive environment.  When an FTC client becomes too aggressive to handle, FTC may temporarily transfer him/her to the Forensics ward.  To ensure that the Forensics ward maintains the mandatory ratio, OSH now requests that FTC staff work at OSH one-on-one until the client is ready to return to FTC.  A Guard HTT served this function recently.  In the past, FTC did not reassign staff members to work at OSH with clients.

            At the time of the 1985 interest arbitration, FTC and OSH both had employees classified as Psychiatric Aides ("PA's") and Psychiatric Security Aides ("PSA's").  The State reclassified former PA's and PSA's at OSH to Mental Health Therapy Technicians ("MHTT's"), Correctional Treatment Technicians ("CTT's"), Mental Health Therapist ("MHT") 1's and 2's, and Correctional Treatment Therapist ("CTTh") 1's and 2's.  It reclassified PA's and PSA's at FTC to HTT's in 1990.

            The parties agreed in 1989 to perform a study of the "work duties assigned in relation to the new classification specifications of the existing ["PA's"] and ["PSA's"] at the Mental Health Division institutions."  The study concluded that employees were performing the duties set forth in their respective class­ifi­ca­tion specifications.  Council Representative Colleen Moen testified the Union understood this study would include a comparison of job duties between employ­ees at FTC and OSH, but that this conclusion did not make the necessary comparison.  The Union proposed selective increases to address the comparability issue with OSH.

            OPEU represents OSH employees.  The State's classification specialist testified that the "know-how" required of the MHTT's and CTT's is virtually identical to HTT-1's.  MHT-1's and CTTh-1's are comparable to the HTT-3's.  No comparable job titles exist at OSH for HTT-2's or MHSSO's.  The State's classification personnel do not place particular emphasis on working in a "secure" setting.  There is some logic to the Union's argument that working with more severe be­haviors should be a factor in determining com­par­a­bility.  However, this argument does not favor the Union for this comparison.  Instead, it suggests it would not be out of line for OSH Forensics ward employees to enjoy somewhat higher compensation than the otherwise-comparable HTT's.

            OPEU also represents employees at the Eastern Oregon Training Center ("EOTC"), classified as HTT-1's and 2's.  Those employees last received a pay increase in April 1993.  No evidence exists of any difference in qualifications or duties between the EOTC HTT's and those at FTC.  They have since accepted a one-year wage freeze beginning July 1993, with a wage reopener in the second year.

            The Union did not submit exact salary figures resulting from its proposals.  To permit at least a rough comparison, the Arbitrator has estimated the net result of the Union's proposals.[1]  The following compares the April 1993 monthly salary for HTT's at EOTC, MHTT's and MHT-1's at OSH, and HTT's at FTC as of the end of the last Agreement and under each party's proposal:

Title Institution Effective Date Lowest/Highest Step
HTT-1 (old) FTC 7/1/91 $1,512          $1,933
HTT-1 EOTC 4/1/93 $1,534          $2,013
HTT-1 (State) FTC 7/1/93 $1,541          $2,015
MHTT OSH 4/1/93 $1,568          $2,060
HTT-1 (Union) FTC 7/1/92 $2,005          $2,872

HTT-2 EOTC 4/1/93 $1,568          $2,060
HTT-2 (old) FTC 7/1/91 $1,575          $2,021
HTT-2 (State) FTC 7/1/93 $1,575          $2,061
HTT-2 (Union) FTC 7/1/92 $2,093          $3,006

HTT-3 (old) FTC 7/1/91 $1,663          $2,156
HTT-3 (State) FTC 7/1/93 $1,663          $2,199
MHT-1 OSH 4/1/93 $1,704          $2,261
HTT-3 (Union) FTC 7/1/92 $2,286          $3,290

            The Union's proposals would put FTC's classifications well above both the EOTC and the OSH classes in salary.  The State's proposal leaves unit employees slightly below the OSH classes.  EOTC HTT's have a wider salary range than those the State proposes for FTC.  In the simplest terms, the EOTC unit agreed to accept a lower starting salary and a higher top salary than at FTC.  In the Arbitrator's experience, such differences are a common result of differing bargaining goals.

            Finally, the State opened community-based group homes in conjunction with the downsizing at FTC.  The "medical" homes take medically-fragile clients, and are staffed by strikeable employees.  The "behavioral" homes take clients whose behaviors are too severe for the community, and are staffed by non-strikeable employees.  FTC employees demoted or accepted lateral transfers to move to the community settings.  The State later reclassified them to HTT-2.  Those employees ratified the Union's agreement to the State's economic proposal on wages in 1992 bargaining.  The Union argues that HTT-1's at FTC perform the same essential functions as HTT-2's in group homes.  This argument must be presented through the appropriate classification review process, not through this interest arbitration.

            In summary, the record does not establish that employees at other State institutions enjoy significantly greater compensation than these unit employees.  It also does not support creating the large advantage that would ensue from the Union's proposals vis-a-vis either units represented by other unions or AFSCME units at other agencies.  Further, no evidence exists that other State units receive a longevity premium.

            D.  Within FTC

            The non-Guard unit does not have a comparable classification to MHSSO's.  The parties are at odds regarding the comparability of Guard and non-Guard HTT's.  As noted above, the State suc­cess­fully petitioned for separate units in 1984.  In contrast to the parties' arguments reflected in the 1984 ERB decision, the State argues here that there is virtually no differ­ence between the duties in the two units, whereas the Union asserts that Guards perform much more security-related work. The appro­priateness of the current bargaining units is not before the Arbitrator.  She will analyze the evidence to determine the extent to which this internal comparison sheds light on the appropriate compensation for the Guard unit.

            MHSSO's patrol the grounds, help staff deal with upset and out-of-control clients, search for clients who have wandered off, investigate alleged crimes, deal with errant employees, and respond to medical and fire emergencies.  Most calls to assist staff come from the non-Guard unit, where staffing is more thinly spread.

            HTT's in both units work primarily in residential facilities called "cottages."  They assist clients in daily living, perform training in some skills, and work on behavior modification programs.  They coordinate clients' care with other employees, particularly Behavioral Psychologists.  Because they work with clients daily, they have a lot of input in changes to behavioral programs.  HTT-1's receive a pay differential when they administer medications.

            The Union's witnesses testified that the Guard unit has always worked with the "worst of the worst" clients.  The State's witnesses agree that clients with the most challenging behavior used to be assigned to Guard cottages.  However, the State's witnesses allege that this situation has changed in recent years.  The staff no longer routinely transfers clients from Guard to non-Guard cottages based solely on behavior.  Instead, they place clients according to their needs, abilities, and peer groups.  All staff must now use the least restrictive measures available to deal with negative behavior.  The emphasis has shifted from containment or control to treatment and training.  To accomplish this, FTC has conducted more training for non-Guard HTT's.

            One of the two Guard cottages is kept locked at all times.  No non-Guard cottage is kept locked.  Before the downsizing, FTC had more locked cottages, all staffed by Guards.  According to the State, the single locked cottage serves the purpose of restricting liberty for clients who cannot be allowed to move freely.  Clients in locked cottages who exhibit good behavior can check out keys to the cottage.  Other brief excursions are also used as a reward for good behavior.

            Staff work often exposes them to the potential for injury.  Safety Representative James Liskey initially testified the injuries in the Guard unit tend to be less frequent, but more severe, than those in the non-Guard unit.  He later testified that Guards' injuries are not more severe than in the non-Guard unit.  FTC's records confirm that injuries are more frequent in the non-Guard unit.  However, they do not show the relative severity of the injuries.  On this record, the Arbitrator cannot conclude there is a substantive difference in the physical risks for Guards versus non-Guards.

            Until July 1990, HTT's in the Guard unit were classified as PSA's, while those in the non-Guard unit were classified as PA's.  PSA's were 3½ ranges higher on the pay scale than PA's.  Effective July 1, 1990, PSA's and PA's became HTT's, all paid on the same pay scale.  Non-Guard HTT's assigned to the Intensive Care Cottage receive a $.29/hour "intensive care differential" to "encourage interest in long-term treatment careers with our multiple-handicapped clients."  Because their underlying pay scale is now the same as that for Guards, the "intensive care differential" gives these employees a higher rate of pay than Guards.  Moen testified that Guards have found this pay difference particularly galling.  To address this issue, the Union initially proposed a $2/hour differential for "employees assigned to work with security clients."  It later dropped this proposal.

            In summary, the work of HTT's at FTC has become more similar over the years.  Assuming arguendo that Guards work with more aggressive clients, this difference is somewhat offset by the fact that Guard cottages are more heavily staffed.  It would not be unreasonable for the parties to agree to pay more for working with particularly dangerous clients; however, the current Union proposals do not target that concern.  On this record, the comparison between non-Guard and Guard duties does not support higher compensa­tion for the Guard unit.

            COST OF LIVING

            The parties agree that the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") W for "All Cities" is the appropriate index.  However, they disagree regarding which period to look to.  Neither party argues that changes in benefits would have changed the overall cost of living picture.

            The State observes that the CPI-W index for the seven fiscal years ending June 30, 1986 to June 30, 1992, rose by an average of 3.7% per year, totalling 26%.  Over the same period, the wage increases in the Guard unit averaged 3.6%, totalling 25.5%.  The Union observes that the CPI-W index for six calendar years 1988 through 1993 (including partial-year figures for 1993) rose by a total of 24%, while wage increases totalled 17.5%.

            The cost of living data warrants closer scrutiny to explain the apparent disparity in the statistics.  In the fiscal year ending June 1986, inflation was unusually low (1.3%), and the unit received the largest pay increase in the seven-year period (5%).  By starting with fiscal year 1986, the State's figures maximize the apparent compensation performance in this unit while minimizing the apparent rate of inflation.

            The Union's statistics avoid the quirks of 1986, but contain other troublesome points.  They use only six years as a base, which gives a larger effect to one-year fluctuations.  Of those years, one (1993) has not yet ended.  Therefore, the Union's statistics reliably reflect only five years' experience.  Even assuming that the final inflation figure is consistent with the first half year's performance, the Union's calculations used inflation figures through 1993.  That span is out of place when seeking to justify a 1992 increase.  If one ends the Union's statistics with 1991, the last calendar year before the proposed wage increase, the total inflation rate over the four years totals 18.1%, and wage increases still equal 17.5%.

            This last observation highlights a significant feature of the wage history for this unit.  The data are complete for only five years, from 1988 to 1992--that is, beginning and ending with even-numbered years.  The limited record on wage increases reveals a pattern of closely-spaced multiple wage increases in odd-numbered years, with little or no wage increases in even-numbered years.  That is, employees received pay increases of 3% each in January and July 1989 (for a total of 6% for the year), and increases of 4.5% and 4%, respectively, in January and July 1991 (for a total of 8.5% for the year).  They received only a 3% increase in 1988 and no increase in 1990.  By beginning and ending its actual figures with low-increase years, the Union's statistics create an unrealistically low average wage increase.  If the pattern persisted, one would expect little or no pay increase in 1992, coupled with a larger increase in 1993.

            The State's cost of living data is somewhat more persuasive than the Union's.  It matches the parties' contract years, and it ends with the most recent Agreement.  It also includes only final CPI-W data.  By using a longer base period, it smooths out the effects of front-loaded contracts and episodic wage increases that mar the Union's statistics.  However, even the Union's figures are instructive.

            Under either party's corrected statistics, wage increases have fallen slightly short of inflation over the years.  The annualized monthly CPI increase between June 1992 and May 1993 ranged from 2.9% to 3.2%.  The logical implication is that a wage freeze would put employees behind the increased cost of living for the seven years ending in mid-1993.

            The State's proposed selective increase for HTT-1's falls just short of a 2% pay increase for most of the unit.  When coupled with the proposed 2% pay increase at Step 7, most unit employees would almost "catch up" to inflation as of July 1993.  On the other hand, the Union's proposed 6% July 1992 increase would put employees several percentage points ahead of the cost of living.  Selective increases and longevity premiums affecting most of the unit would further advantage these employees relative to other wage earners.  Nothing in the record justifies a wage increase of the magnitude sought by the Union.


            Most of the Guards began their employment at FTC in the non-Guard unit, then bid into the Guard unit.  Some of them moved to community-based settings during the downsizing.  Other than those moves, there has been no turnover among Guards.  All but six of the Guards have reached the top step (Step 7) of the pay scale.  Their seniority dates range from 1987 back to 1960.  On this record, no problem exists with recruitment and retention in this unit.  Accordingly, this factor does not suggest that Guards should receive a disproportionately large wage increase compared to other State employees.


            The Union introduced evidence that the State could request emergency funding for unanticipated compensation costs arising from this proceeding.  This evidence does not establish relative ability to pay higher wage increases.  "Emergency" funds normally are a last-ditch measure to avoid defaulting on obligations.  Indeed, if the Arbitrator's Award were to create an "emergency," that would almost by definition establish an inability to pay.


            Based on the above discussion and analysis, the Arbitrator concludes that the State's lack of ability to pay warrants only a small wage increase.  The State's proposal is consistent with its ability to pay and the remaining statutory factors.


            The Arbitrator directs the parties to implement the following change in salary schedules for Guard unit employees at FTC:

            Freeze wages from July 1, 1992 until 11:58 p.m. June 30th 1993.  On June 30th, 1993 at 11:59 p.m. increase Step 7 for each classification of the salary schedule by two percent (2%).  Employees on Step 7 will become eligible for the two percent (2%) increase on the individual's SED date which falls on or after July 1, 1993.

            Fairview HTT 1's move from FTC 14* to FTC 15 salary range on SED dates on or after July 1, 1993.


Salary Range Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4  Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
FV 14* 1512 1575  1636 1700  1773 1850 1933
FV 15 1541 1608 1663   1738 1808 1891  1975



            State:  The State proposed to continue the current contract rate of $.45 for each hour or major portion thereof for work between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and for each hour or major portion thereof for work on Saturday and Sunday.

            Union:  The Union proposed to increase the rate to $.60 effective July 1, 1992.  The Union also proposed to delete language limiting shift differential to employees in salary range 22 or below.


            No evidence or argument was submitted on the proposal to delete language limiting the shift differential to employees in salary range 22 or below.  Accordingly, that issue has not been analyzed.  Much of the economic evidence regarding Issue 1 also bears on the remaining three issues.  The Arbitrator incorporates the earlier discussion of those factors by reference.  As the proponent of a change from the status quo, the Union bears the burden of persuasion on the next two issues.

            ABILITY TO PAY

            The Union's proposal would exceed the cost of the State's proposal by $30,040 over three years.  Of that figure, $10,454 would come from the State's General Fund.  The annual cost would be approximately one-third of those figures.  Although the amount of the expenditure is small, the same relative ability to pay concern exists as in the salary proposals.  It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Union has shown a justification for a change in this provision.


            Each party introduced tables comparing the shift differentials with the same out-of-state and private Oregon comparators used to support its salary proposals.  The Union's table shows shift differentials ranging from $.45 in Idaho to $.59 in Nevada.  However, the actual dollar figure is an extrapolation from a percentage figure in two states (4% of base rate in Idaho, 5% in Nevada).  For that calculation, the Union used the top rate for HTT's.  The State's table shows shift differentials ranging from zero (in the private Oregon facilities) to $.54 (Nevada HTT-2 comparators).  Like the Union's figure, the Nevada figure is an extrapolation from a percentage of base rate (4.5%).  For that calculation, the State used the average rate of pay for the HTT class.  No explanation exists on this record for the difference between the percentages used by the State and the Union for Nevada.

            The Arbitrator has previously expressed her reservations about the comparators selected by both parties.  These concerns also apply to shift differentials, particularly where some of the figures do not show actual hourly rates for the comparators.  In any event, the Union's proposal exceeds the rate for the highest comparator introduced.

            The non-Guard unit receives shift differential pay consistent with the status quo ante.  The Union introduced the 1993 OPEU contract settlement as part of its case for selective increases.  While not determinative on this issue, that settlement also included shift differentials for 24 hour institution personnel of $.47.


            The State is relatively unable to pay this increase.  The Union offered only sketchy compar­ative evidence.  That evidence was not persuasive.  Absent other evidence in support of the proposed increase, the Arbitrator concludes that the Union has not established a substantial reason for paying greater shift differentials to unit employees.  The Arbitrator will award the State's proposal.


            The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the following language in the Agreement:

            Shift differential shall apply to all employees in the bargaining unit except temporary appointments and part-time employees working less than thirty-two (32) hours per month.  In order to qualify for shift differential, an employee must be in a job classification which is allocated to the salary range 22 or below.  An employee shall be paid a shift differential of forty-five cent ($0.45) per hour for each hour or major portion thereof for work between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and for each hour or major portion thereof for work on Saturday and Sunday.



            State:  The State proposed to continue the current contract rate of $.25 per hour differential for all shifts in which employees perform Certified Medical Assistant ("CMA") duties, where those employees' classifications do not include CMA duties.

            Union:  The Union proposed to increase the rate to $.35, effective July 1, 1992, and to $.45 effective July 1, 1993.


            CMA's medicate clients, document medications, see that clients get medical treatments, and handle medical emergencies.  Unit employees can be assigned to these duties if they are certified by the State of Oregon Board of Nursing.  Only HTT-1's receive the CMA differential, and only when performing CMA duties.  The HTT-2 classification already includes CMA duties, and therefore those employees do not re­ceive the CMA differential.

            At the time HTT-1 Jack Martin took the CMA training, FTC paid for his course.  It no longer pays for the course.  It also does not reimburse employees for the $20 per year required to maintain CMA certification.

            ABILITY TO PAY

            The State has estimated the three-year cost of the Union's proposal at $2,880, of which $1,002 would come from General Funds.  One-year costs would be approximately one-third of those figures.  As with the other proposals, the Union must show a particular justification for this increase.


            The Union argues that HTT-1's who perform CMA duties are performing the same duties as HTT-2's.  HTT-2's make between $.36 and $.56 per hour more than HTT-1's.  A cursory review of the classification specifications reveals other differences in duties beyond CMA duties.  Indeed, the classification specification specifically states that only "some" HTT-2's perform CMA duties.  Therefore, even if this proceeding permitted the Arbitrator to determine whether HTT-1's are performing HTT-2 work when serving as CMA's, no valid comparison in compensation can be made between these two classes.

            Non-Guard HTT-1's receive a CMA differential consistent with the State's proposal.  No evidence exists that the circumstances in which they do so differ in any significant respect from unit employees.  None of the State's comparators in private Oregon facilities or adjacent states receive any differential for passing medications.


            The Union points to the disproportionate cost of training for and maintaining CMA certification when compared with the CMA differential.  Once certified, an HTT-1 would have to perform CMA duties for 80 hours to recoup the annual certification costs.  The Union notes that FTC benefits from having numerous certified CMA's.  It argues that the differential should be increased to encourage employees to acquire and retain certification.


            Without question, the State benefits from having CMA-trained employees.  All else being equal, it might be desirable to encourage more employees to seek and maintain such training.  However, this does not outweigh the relative inability to pay established by the State.  The Arbitrator will award the State's proposal.


            The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the following language in the Agreement:

            Employees whose classifications do not include CMA duties but are assigned to perform CMA duties will be paid twenty-five cents ($0.25) per hour differential for all shifts in which they are performing those duties.



            State:  The State proposed language which would permit the State to offer overtime in increments of 8 hours.

            Union:  The Union proposed to continue the current contract language, permitting the State to offer overtime in increments of 4 hours.


            Under both proposals, employees may volunteer to work more than four hours of overtime at a time.  In fact, during the twelve months of fiscal year 1993, the majority of voluntary overtime shifts worked in the Guard unit were eight hours in length (867 out of 1,526 overtime shifts).  The dispute arises in the length of overtime shifts the State will offer in the first instance.  The parties agree that ability to pay is not a factor in this analysis.

            Employees receive double time after four hours if they work mandatory overtime, but time and one half for voluntary overtime.  If an employee volunteers for the first half of an eight-hour shift, but FTC is unable to find a volunteer for the remainder of that shift, the employee may be required to work overtime the second half of the shift.  In that event, the employee would receive double overtime for the second four hours.  If an employee volunteers for an eight-hour shift at the outset, s/he receives time and one half for the entire shift.  FTC paid 10 hours' mandatory overtime in the Guard unit in the twelve months ending June 1993.  During that same period, it paid 1,222.5 hours' voluntary overtime.  


            In 1992 bargaining, the State proposed eight-hour overtime increments for both the Guard and non-Guard units.  The Union eventually agreed to this proposal in exchange for more favorable layoff language.  Non-Guards are now offered overtime in eight-hour increments.  The parties agree that shortly after implementing the eight-hour increments for non-Guards, FTC contacted the Union to discuss whether to change this provision.  They disagree about the reason for that request.  The parties ultimately made no change in the non-Guard overtime provision.

            According to the Union's witnesses, FTC found it more difficult to get volunteers for eight-hour shifts.  According to the State's witnesses, during the initial implementation of this change, employees voiced concern that they would not have the opportunity to volunteer for four-hour overtime shifts if they turned down eight-hour overtime shifts.  However, in practice, this concern turned out not to be a problem.


            A.        Safety/Fatigue

            The existing contract language first appeared in 1987, when the State proposed to limit overtime offers to two-hour increments.  Moen testified the State justified its proposal as a safety measure, commenting that staff was "burning out" and not working safely with eight-hour overtime shifts.  The Union responded that two-hour increments would be administratively unworkable, and successfully offered a proposal for four-hour increments.  The Union resisted the State's 1992 proposal for eight-hour increments on safety and fatigue grounds.  The State's witnesses assert that overall overtime is down, and that overtime is not a factor in FTC's safety record today.

            Gary Lanterman, who is responsible for staffing at FTC, testified that he often gets responses from Intensive Care employees that they are too tired to volunteer for an overtime shift.  He does not hear this response when seeking volunteers for overtime in the Guard unit.

            The Union introduced written statements from 28 unit employees asserting they would not vol­unteer as often for overtime if it was offered in eight-hour increments.  One employee added that eight-hour shifts would give him fewer opportunities for overtime.  MHSSO Neil Bednarczyk testi­fied he volunteers to work eight-hour overtime shifts only at the end of his scheduled work week of four 10-hour shifts.  He volunteers for four-hour overtime shifts, and occasionally six-hour shifts, during his work week.  Moen testified that older employees find it more difficult to work two back-to-back full shifts during their work week.  Other employees are unwilling to volunteer for eight-hour overtime shifts because of family or other obligations.

            B.        Administrative Convenience

            Most shifts are either eight or ten hours long.  By offering overtime in eight-hour increments, FTC can cover an unscheduled absence with one employee rather than two.  If employees accept the overtime offered, this reduces the number of calls necessary to cover a shift.  It provides more consistent care for clients, and eliminates the need to re-orient or re-deploy employees between cottages.  However, if employees decline the eight-hour overtime shifts, FTC must either require overtime (and incur the penalty for mandatory overtime past four hours); seek volunteers for shorter shifts; re-deploy staff from other cottages; or offer the work to temporary employees, non-unit, or managerial employees.  Each of these steps requires additional administrative time.

            Lanterman testified that his office sometimes uses the wrong system to offer overtime.  His office has sometimes had to require overtime for the second half of a shift simply because it could not get through the administrative process of seeking volunteers during the first half of the shift.  If an employee declines an eight-hour overtime shift, but offers to work four hours, his staff accepts that offer.

            Personnel Director Mary Lenz testified that employees sometimes played games and put FTC in the position of having to require overtime.  In contrast, Lanterman testified that employees readily volunteer for overtime, and sometimes appear to be competing for the most overtime.  In his experience, Guard unit employees consistently offer to work eight-hour shifts.  He did not recall the last time he had to require overtime, and testified it was very rare.  Bednarczyk testified that FTC rarely requires overtime in his work unit; instead, it uses supervisors to fill in if no one volunteers.

            The Union argues that two other overtime systems exist at FTC in units represented by other unions.  No evidence exists regarding the nature of those overtime systems or any administrative inconvenience arising out of administering those systems.


            As the moving party on this issue, the State bears the burden of persuasion within the statutory criteria.  Respectable arguments can be made for both the four-hour and eight-hour increments.  Either system permits employees to volunteer for shorter as well as longer shifts.  The principal argument in favor of the State's proposal is administrative convenience.

            The Arbitrator can sympathize with the confusion arising from maintaining multiple overtime systems.  However, that is a predictable outgrowth of having two bargaining units.  The interest arbitration process was not designed to eliminate such differences.

            The remainder of the evidence regarding administrative convenience is equivocal at best.  The current system of offering four-hour increments results in volunteers for full eight-hour shifts in many instances.  It is easy to believe that some employees who take four-hour overtime shifts would not agree to work eight-hour shifts, consistent with the Union's evidence.  If they would not, FTC would lose administrative time looking for eight-hour volunteers instead of taking the available four-hour volunteers.  The record does not support the thesis that employees "played games" to force mandatory overtime pay.  Less than one percent of the total overtime hours paid in the past year were for mandatory overtime, and Lanterman found that employees gladly volunteer for overtime.

            Unlike most proposed changes in working conditions, the record here permits the luxury of seeing the impact of the change on a comparable unit of employees.  Intensive Care employees, who work in the non-Guard unit, have claimed fatigue in declining overtime; Guards have not.  Lanterman's recent experience is consistent with the reasons offered by the State in proposing four-hour increments in 1987.  The speculative possibility of administrative convenience in filling full eight-hour shifts does not constitute a substantial reason for changing the existing conditions absent agreement by the Union.  The Arbitrator will award the Union's proposal.


            The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the following language in the Agreement as Article 29, Section 7-b, first sentence:

            In no instance will an employee work overtime which exceeds four (4) hours beyond their regularly scheduled shift, and in no instance will an employee work overtime on a consecutive day after working overtime the previous day except as follows:

            DATED:  December 15, 1993


                                                                                             LUELLA E. NELSON - Arbitrator


NEIL BEDNARCZYK, Mental Health Security and Safety Officer ("MHSSO")

KIRK BUTTS, Habilitative Training Technician 1 ("HTT-1")

ALLISON HASSLER, Council Representative, AFSCME

LOLA LAHR, Speech and Language Pathologist


MARY LENZ, Personnel Director, Fairview Training Center

JAMES LISKEY, Program Technician II, Safety Representative

JACK MARTIN, Habilitative Training Technician ("HTT") 1

COLLEEN MOEN, Council Representative, AFSCME

MIKE MALLORIE, HTT-1, Specialty Aide

FRANK VEHAFRIC, Staff Representative, AFSCME


JIM CARBONE, Senior Budget Analyst, Budget Management Division, Department of Administrative Services

JOHN COOPER, Director of Fiscal Service, Fairview Training Center

GARY DEVERELL, Director of Safety, Fairview Training Center

DENNIS DICKENSON, Classification Specialist, Labor Relations Section, Department of Administrative Services

DEE EMERSON, Classification Analyst, Labor Relations Section, Department of Administrative Services

CHUCK FARNHAM, Deputy Superintendent, Fairview Training Center

CHRISTIE GALLEGOS, Administrator for State-Operated Community Programs

ROSEMARY HENNESSY, Superintendent, Fairview Training Center

GARY LANTERMAN, HSS, Fairview Training Center

MARY LENZ, Personnel Director, Fairview Training Center

KAREN OLSON, Budget and Contracts Manager, Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division, Department of Human Resources

TOM PERRY, Cost Analyst, Labor Relations Section, Department of Administrative Services

JAY QUIRING, Unit Director, Fairview Training Center

RITA THOMAS, Chief Negotiator, Personnel and Labor Relations Division, Executive Department

LINDA VOGUE, Compensation Specialist, Labor Relations Section, Department of Administrative Services



1                      Oregon Statute & Rules for Interest Arbitration

2                      1985 Interest Arbitration Award

3                      Current Collective Bargaining Agreement

4                      AFSCME Ratification Letter Dated 1-7-93


OV-1                Fairview Pamphlet

OV-2                Fairview - Where We Are Today Pamphlet

OV-3                Fairview - History in the Making Pamphlet

OV-4                1993 Fairview Map

OV-5                1989 Fairview Map

OV-6                Hours of Training Pie Chart

OV-7                Summary of Salary Adjustments, State-Wide

OV-8                Karen Roach letter to Cecil Tibbetts 5-16-91

OV-9                Cecil Tibbetts letter to Karen Roach 5-30-91

OV-10              AFSCME Central Table t/a 12-18-92

OV-11              Unfair Labor Practice Charge 14-93 and Motion to Stay Interest Arbitration

OV-12              OSPOA Interest Arbitration Award 9-1-93

OV-13              OHSU/ONA Factfinders Report 10-3-93

OV-14              AFSCME-Guard Proposals 1992

OV-15              1989-92 K excerpt - Letter of Agreement re new job classes

17-1a                Local Government Revenues pie chart

17-1b                Total State Revenues pie chart

17-1c                1993-95 General Fund Revenues pie chart

17-1d                Pie chart showing allocation of general funds

17-1e                Human Resources funding pie chart and bar graph

17-1f                Bar chart comparing Oregon and US property taxes, pre-Measure 5

17-1g                Bar chart comparing state and local taxes as % of personal income

17-1h                Description and argument in favor of Measure 5

17-1i                 Text of revised Constitution post-Measure 5

17-1j-t               Legislative Research Report on Measure 5

17-1u                Bar graph showing impact of Measure 5 on taxes

17-1v                Table, graph showing impact at local level

17-1w               Bar chart showing impact on general fund allocation

17-1x                Bar chart showing gap in funding for same level of services                                            

17-1y                Details underlying 17-1x

17-1z-aa           Case law, Attorney General opinions re balanced budget

17-1bb              List of program reductions

17-1cc-ee         Position Reduction Plan, by agency

17-1ff-hh          Employee layoffs, by agency

17-2a                Mission Statement, MHDDSD

17-2b-c             Overview of clients and services, Mental Health Services

17-2d-e             Overview of clients and services, Developmental Disability

17-2f                Organizational Chart, MHDDSD

17-2g                Staffing for various programs, MHDDSD

17-2h                List of 10 largest agencies or programs funded by general fund

17-2i                 1993-95 MHDDSD budget funding source pie chart

17-2j                 MHDDSD funding, by source and program

17-2k                Bar graph, MHDDSD budget by fund type

17-2l                 Major changes from continuing service level

17-2m               Bar chart, MHDDSD Budget 1989-95

17-2n                Average Daily Population in each facility

17-2o                Position Trends bar chart

17-3a-b             Introductory statement re budget/staffing

17-3c                1991-93 Biennial estimated budget pie chart

17-3d                1993-95 Mandated Plus budget pie chart

17-3e                FTC Budget pie chart

17-3f                Comparison of cost of Union and State general wage proposal

17-3g                Details used for 17-3f

17-4a                Summary sheet HTT-1 for Oregon and contiguous states

17-4b                Summary sheet HTT-2 for Oregon and contiguous states

17-4c                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, weighted average, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4d                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, average, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4e                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, top step, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4f                Comparison of total compensation, weighted average, HTT-1 to 4 contiguous states

17-4g                Comparison of total compensation, average, HTT-1 to 4 contiguous states

17-4h                Comparison of total compensation, top step, HTT-1 to 4 contiguous states

17-4i                 Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, weighted average, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4j                 Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, average, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4k                Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, top step, compared to 4 contiguous states

17-4l                 Comparison of total compensation, weighted average, HTT-2 to 4 contiguous states

17-4m               Comparison of total compensation, average, HTT-2 to 4 contiguous states

17-4n                Comparison of total compensation, top step, HTT-2 to 4 contiguous states

17-4o                Total Compensation Comparison, HTT-1's in-state

17-4p                Total Compensation Comparison, HTT-2's in-state

17-4q                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, weighted average, to in-state

17-4r                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, average, to in-state

17-4s                Bar chart comparison of HTT-1 total compensation, top step, to in-state

17-4t                 Comparison of total compensation, weighted average, HTT-1 to in-state

17-4u                Comparison of total compensation, average, HTT-1 to in-state

17-4v                Comparison of total compensation, top step, HTT-1 to in-state

17-4w               Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, weighted average, to in-state

17-4x                Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, average, to in-state

17-4y                Bar chart comparison of HTT-2 total compensation, top step, to in-state

17-4z                Comparison of total compensation, weighted average, HTT-2 to in-state

17-4aa              Comparison of total compensation, average, HTT-2 to in-state

17-4bb              Comparison of total compensation, top step, HTT-2 to in-state

17-4cc-dd         Comparison of HTT-1 and HTT-2 Internal Salary Rates

17-5                  Turnover-Retention data

17-6                  CPI and Salary History, 6-30-86 to 6-30-92

17-7                  ORS 240.190

17-8                  Relative costs of State and Union salary range adjustment proposals

17-9a                Summary of class specifications for HTT's, MHTT's, and CTT's

17-9b                Class specifications for HTT-1

17-9c                Class specifications for MHTT at OSH

17-9d                Class specifications for CTT at OSH

17-9e                Class specifications for HTT-2

17-9f                Class specifications for MHT-1 at OSH

17-9g                Class specifications for CTTh-1 at OSH

17-9h                Class specifications for HTT-3

17-9i                 Class specifications for MHT-2 at OSH

17-9j                 Class specifications for CTTh-2 at OSH

17-10                Relative costs of State and Union longevity proposals

17-11                Fairview policy on Client Incident Reports ("CIR's"), with statistics

17-12                "At-risk" list, by house

17-13                Penal code

17-14a              Class specifications for California PTT

17-14b              Class specifications for California Hospital Worker

17-14c              Class specifications for Rainbow HS-2

17-14d              Class specifications for WOSC Direct Care Staff

17-14e              Class specifications for Oregon Community Service CIS

17-14f               Class specifications for Wildwood Community Living Instructor I

17-16                Bar Chart, Behavior Injury Review 9/27/92-9/27/93

17-17                1991 Position Description, HTT-1, Apartments/Social Skills

17-18                1993 Position Description, HTT-1, Meier Cottage

21-1                  Cost Comparison, State and Union proposals for Shift Differential

26-1                  Cost comparison, State and Union proposals for CMA Differential

26-2                  Cost comparison for 2 actual staff under Union proposal

26-3                  Comparison of Differentials for HTT's

29-1                  Staffing Information for August 1993

29-2                  Sample Voluntary Overtime card

29-3                  Protocol for offering floor staff overtime

29-4                  Monthly summary of overtime worked, Meier & Johnson Cottages

29-5                  1989-92 Non-Guard Agreement

29-6                  1992-94 Non-Guard Agreement

29-7                  Seniority roster


1a                     Entry Level Wage comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1b                     Wage comparison at 5 years w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1c                     Wage comparison at top step w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1d                     Annual Holidays Hours comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1e                     Vacation @ entry comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1f                     Vacation @ 5 years comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1 1g                     Vacation @ 10 years comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1h                     Vacation @ 20 years comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1i                      Employer picked up retirement comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1j                      Total Employer Paid Retirement comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1k                     Employer Paid Max Health Ins comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1l                      Employee Paid Health Ins comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1m                    Monthly Hours of Work, Entry Level, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1n                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 5 years, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1o                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 10 years, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1p                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 20 years, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1q                     Years to Top Step, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1r                     Relative Monthly Wage, Entry Level Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1s                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 5 Years Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1t                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 10 Years Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1u                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 20 Years Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1v                     General Compensation, Entry Level, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1w                    General Compensation @ 5 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1x                     General Compensation @ 10 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1y                     General Compensation @ 20 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/4 contiguous states, HTT-1

1z                     Wages, Numerical rankings among 5 states

1aa                   Hours of Work, Numerical rankings among 5 states

1bb                   Relative Monthly Wage Numerical Rankings, % comparisons

1cc                   General Compensation Numerical Rankings, % comparisons

3a                     Entry Level Wages, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3b                     Wages @ 5 Years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3c                     Top Step Wages, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3d                     Years to Top Step, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3e                     Annual Hours of Work, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3f                     Annual Holiday Hours, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3g                     Vacation @ entry, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3h                     Vacation @ 5 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3i                      Vacation @ 10 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3j                      Vacation @ 20 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3k                     Employer Picked Up Retirement, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3l                      Total Employer Paid Retirement, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3m                    Employer Paid Max Health Ins, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3n                     Employee Paid Health Ins, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3o                     Monthly Hours of Work, Entry Level, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3p                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 5 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3q                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 10 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3r                     Monthly Hours of Work @ 20 years, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3s                     Relative Monthly Wage, Entry Level, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3t                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 5 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3u                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 10 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3v                     Relative Monthly Wage @ 20 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3w                    General Compensation, Entry Level, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3x                     General Compensation @ 5 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3y                     General Compensation @ 10 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3z                     General Compensation @ 20 years, Minimum Premium Pay, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3aa                   Wages, numerical rankings, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3bb                   Hours of work, numerical rankings, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3cc                   Retirement & health, numerical rankings, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3dd                   Monthly hours of work, numerical rankings, comparison w/3 contiguous states, HTT-3

3ee                   Relative Monthly Wage, numerical rankings, % comparisons, HTT-3

3ff                    General Compensation, numerical rankings, % comparisons, HTT-3

6                      Chart of CPI-W, all cities, 1973-93

8                      Comparison of CPI and Fairview General Wage Increase

9                      Class specifications, HTT-1

10                     Class specifications, HTT-2

11a                   Class specifications, HTT-3

11b                   Class specifications, HTT-shift charge

12                     Class specifications, MHSSO

13                     Class specifications, California Psychiatric Tech

14                     Class specifications, Washington Attendant Counselor 1

15                     Class specifications, Nevada Mental Retardation Techs I-IV

16                     Class specifications, MHTT

17                     Compensation Plans for Fairview, AFSCME

18                     Compensation Plans for OSH/OPEU

19                     Compensation Plans for California PT classes

20                     Compensation Plans for Nevada - 2 pay scales

21                     Compensation Plans for Washington

22                     Compensation Plans for Idaho

23                     1991 Position Description, HTT-1, Johnson Cottage

24                     1991 Position Description, HTT-2, Johnson Cottage

25                     1991 Position Description, HTT-3, Johnson Cottage

26                     1991 Position Description, HTT-1, Central Staffing

27                     1992 Position Description, MHSSO, Central Operations

28                     1991 Position Description, HTT-1, Steel Cottage

29                     1991 Position Description, HTT-1, Byrd Cottage

30                     1991 Position Description, HTT-2, Linn County Behavioral Home

31                     Announcement for jobs in group homes

32                     Decision ordering reclassification of Ronnie Lee Lawson from HTT to Campus Certified Officer

33                     Decision ordering reclassification of Monte G. Belwood from HTT to Campus Certified Officer

34                     Letter of Agreement from 1992 bargaining

35                     1991 Classification analysis

36                     Tom Levak interest arbitration award

39                     1984 ERB Ruling on unit clarification petition

40                     1992 ERB Declaratory Ruling finding behavior home employees non-strikeable

41                     Seniority roster, MHSSO

42                     Seniority roster, HTT-1

43                     Seniority roster, HTT-2

44                     Seniority roster, HTT-3

45                     Seniority roster, HTT shift charge

47                     Demographics

48                     1993 State Employee Benefits Survey

49                     Vacant Food Service Department Positions as of 2/11/93

50                     Statements of Jim Johnson, Warren Walker, Jeff McCormick, James Petrin, Pete Feskens, Mildred Bainbridge, Richard Poe, Marvin Moustachetti, James Earhart, Mike Barker, Richard Grimes, Gordon A. Minten, Bob Larson, Larry Gosnell, Debbie McLoud, Day Schoenman, Neil Bednarczyk, Susan Barker, Kenneth Early, Thanh Quan, Debra A. Misick, Mayme Hall, C. Joyce Wright, Everett Bennett, Linda Fogle, Luz Wigant, John Fogle, Tim Sohn

51                     Overtime hours for Johnson & Meier Cottage Staff 7/1/92 to 6/30/93

52                     Class specifications, Idaho Developmental Disabilities Technician Trainee

53                     Administrative Memo #629 incorporating direct care staff into IDT

54                     OPEU Summary of T/A's, recommendations to units

55                     Chart of FTC revenues, expenditures, and employment for 1991-93 and 1993-95

56                     ORS 291.322, Emergency Board provisions

57                     Shift Differential Comparisons w/4 contiguous states

[1]           The 1991 salaries for HTT's are roughly 12% higher than the salary figures (for 1989) printed in the last Agreement.  The calculation involves taking the 1989 salary figures for Ranges 20, 21, and 23, adding 12% to calculate the 1991 figures, adding the proposed 6% general increase, then adding the maximum 10% longevity premium to Step 7.

Home  |  MyLawMemo  |  Custom Alerts  |  Newest Cases  |  Key Word Search  
No-obligation trial  |  Arbitrators  |  Law Firms  |  Sample Memos 


Get your 28 day trial now 

Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Key Word Search.